pcb_select_component

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Select a component in the editor' reveals the action but not side effects such as clearing previous selection, focusing/zooming the view, whether an open document is required, or what happens if the designator is not found. These are significant unknowns for a UI-state-mutating operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states the action and resource, and it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The combination of description and schema is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool with a designator, but missing behavioral context leaves gaps: no return value indication, no statement about side effects, and no mention of prerequisites like an open PCB document. This is adequate but not complete, especially given that no annotations or output schema exist to fill those gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the designator parameter is already documented as '元件位号' (component designator). The description adds little about the parameter beyond implying that the selected entity is a component, but per the rubric the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('select') and resource ('component in the editor'). It is not a tautology and is understandable, but it does not explicitly mention selecting by designator or differentiate itself from sibling tools, though the verb 'select' helps separate it from move/create/delete operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool such as pcb_move_component or pcb_create_component would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is 'when you want to select', which is tautological.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.